Here are the two NY Times articles, cut and paste...the study is from the Archives of Environmental Health March/April, 2002 issue {(vol. 57 No.1)}. The name of the study is Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after Nuclear Plant Closings in the United States. The second is on the economical impact of closing plants. Apparently they didn't figure in the cost of
treating cancer children and the loss of infants.....Does anyone know for sure....isn't the NCI federally funded??? Thanks for reading... AWR

April 30, 2002


Nuclear Power Opponents Cite Link to Infant Death Rates

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

ntinuclear campaigners plan to announce today that a new study shows that infant death rates downwind of eight American nuclear power plants dropped significantly after they were shut down.

Some plan to use the findings to support calls for closing the nuclear reactors at Indian Point, the plant closest to New York City, in Westchester County.

But federal officials, some radiation experts and representatives of the nuclear power industry said that there was no evidence to link illness and proximity to nuclear plants and that minute, occasional releases from such plants were much lower than natural radiation levels.

The new statistical study, which is being published in the next issue of The Archives of Environmental Health, was conducted by a group of scientists who for many years have purported to show a link between mortality and illness and low levels of radiation from power plants, bomb tests and other sources.

But their past work has never been replicated by federal health researchers, and the statistical analysis they used in some earlier studies has been challenged by the National Cancer Institute.

The study said the infant death rate in communities for two years preceding the plant shutdowns averaged 8.44 deaths per 1,000 births and, when all the mortality data for two years after the plant shutdowns were combined, the infant mortality rate dropped to 7.01 per 1,000 births.

The difference was statistically significant, the authors said, and the drop was greater than the general drop in infant death rates around the country in recent years.

The scientists, from the Radiation and Public Health Project, a nonprofit group, defended their new findings and cited the need for much more research.

Joseph J. Mangano, a public health statistician and the national coordinator for the group, said a statistical link does not prove a cause and effect, but points to the need for more work.

"A lot of things could affect infant deaths," he said. "The list is literally endless. This doesn't mean we've proved anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but what I will say is we really need to do more follow-up."



Dr. John Boice Jr., who directed a 1991 National Cancer Institute study of disease patterns around nuclear plants and other institutions using radiation, said no link emerged.



Home | Back to New York Region | Search | Help Back to Top





Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

April 30, 2002
Study Says Closing Atomic Plant Would Raise Energy Costs
By WINNIE HU


The study was commissioned by the plant's owner, the Entergy Corporation, and completed jointly over the past three months by two independent research groups, National Economic Research Associates and General Electric Power Systems Energy Consulting. Two economists who helped prepare the study, accompanied by Entergy officials, presented their findings this afternoon to a committee of the Westchester County Board of Legislators.

It is the first time that Entergy has released a study about Indian Point's economic impact since opposition to the plant began spreading after Sept. 11. Spurred largely by safety concerns, many state and local politicians, environmental groups and concerned residents have called in recent months for the closing of Indian Point, which is about 40 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

"It's fine to have discussions about closing down Indian Point," said Laurence P. Gottlieb, a spokesman for Entergy, who attended today's committee meeting. "But when you get to the point where you've shown it's safe and secure, then you need to go beyond that to the economics of it. You need real data to show there is not the infrastructure to bring that power in at the same cost that you're producing it here at Indian Point."



In addition, the study said, replacing the nuclear reactors with natural gas or alternate sources would result in higher costs to provide the same amount of electricity. The study estimated an additional $3.4 billion in consumer expenditures by 2005 for the electricity alone, while Entergy officials said that building enough transmission lines to carry that electricity from other areas could cost hundreds of millions more.

But Michael B. Kaplowitz, the chairman of the legislative committee, said he questioned some of the study's basic assumptions. For instance, he said, the study did not take into account all the natural gas plants in development, or that there was simply less demand for electricity because of the recession and the destruction of the trade center.



Mr. Gottlieb said that Entergy had decided to focus on the energy impact of closing Indian Point because Mr. Kaplowitz and others had raised questions about it. He said that Entergy officials had already addressed those other issues, estimating that as many as 2,000 jobs would be lost, as well as $34 million in state, county and local taxes.